How Users of Different Ages Rate a Mobile App for Self-Testing of Hearing
preprint
OA: closed
Abstract
Introduction Traditional diagnostic methods of hearing assessment, such as pure tone audiometry, may not be equally accessible to everyone due to geographical or mobility limitations. Utilizing a mobile application (app) for self-assessment of hearing is a promising alternative. However, the effectiveness of apps, as well as their usability across different age groups, remains largely unexplored. The objective of the present study was to assess, across different age groups, the usability of the “Hearing Test” app which allows self-testing of hearing on a mobile phone. Materials and methods The study was conducted on 77 participants from three age groups (16–39 years, 40–59 years, 60 years and older) who self-tested their hearing thresholds using the mobile app and who later underwent pure tone audiometry with an audiologist. The usability of the app was evaluated using a questionnaire based on the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), which was complemented by participant observation and interview. Results The app generally yielded results comparable to pure tone audiometry. However, older age groups tended to report higher levels of difficulty across several usability dimensions. Specifically, the oldest group rated the app lower in terms of functionality (M = 2.30; SD = 1.27) and engagement-customization (M = 2.11; SD = 1.28). For the oldest participants, the greatest difficulties related to installation (48%), and interpretation of results (26%). None of the participants aged 60 or older were able to complete the test independently, in contrast to 67% of the youngest participants and 28% of the middle-aged who did not require assistance. All age groups expressed a preference for a conventional hearing test over an app-based assessment, although the youngest group showed the greatest openness to using mobile apps. Conclusions The “Hearing Test” app has demonstrated its potential as a tool for initial hearing assessment, particularly among younger users. However, older individuals often encounter difficulties with installation, interpretation of results, and overall usability. Adapting the interface to meet the specific needs of older users, including user-friendly tutorials and clear presentation of results, is crucial for enhancing its usability.
Full text
3,917 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· 4 sections
· click to expand
Abstract
Introduction Traditional diagnostic methods of hearing assessment, such as pure tone audiometry, may not be equally accessible to everyone due to geographical or mobility limitations. Utilizing a mobile application (app) for self-assessment of hearing is a promising alternative. However, the effectiveness of apps, as well as their usability across different age groups, remains largely unexplored. The objective of the present study was to assess, across different age groups, the usability of the “Hearing Test” app which allows self-testing of hearing on a mobile phone.
Materials and methods
The study was conducted on 77 participants from three age groups (16–39 years, 40–59 years, 60 years and older) who self-tested their hearing thresholds using the mobile app and who later underwent pure tone audiometry with an audiologist. The usability of the app was evaluated using a questionnaire based on the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), which was complemented by participant observation and interview.
Results
The app generally yielded results comparable to pure tone audiometry. However, older age groups tended to report higher levels of difficulty across several usability dimensions. Specifically, the oldest group rated the app lower in terms of functionality (M = 2.30; SD = 1.27) and engagement-customization (M = 2.11; SD = 1.28). For the oldest participants, the greatest difficulties related to installation (48%), and interpretation of results (26%). None of the participants aged 60 or older were able to complete the test independently, in contrast to 67% of the youngest participants and 28% of the middle-aged who did not require assistance. All age groups expressed a preference for a conventional hearing test over an app-based assessment, although the youngest group showed the greatest openness to using mobile apps.
Conclusions
The “Hearing Test” app has demonstrated its potential as a tool for initial hearing assessment, particularly among younger users. However, older individuals often encounter difficulties with installation, interpretation of results, and overall usability. Adapting the interface to meet the specific needs of older users, including user-friendly tutorials and clear presentation of results, is crucial for enhancing its usability.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics Committee of the Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing (consent no. KB.IFPS 3/2023)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Ask this paper
Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.
Source provenance
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00